No, Jesus did not have to say again he is the Son of a human.May 13 2017 at 10:58 PM
|Tomas (Login TomasSedlacek)|
Response to Re: Jesus had already told them earlier he is the Son of a human.
13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
What is your comment on v.13, on the matter that Jesus have to say and have to mention that he is the Son of man when he could just have asked "whom say ye that I am?" as he did in v.15?
And what do you see in Peter's response in v.16 in relation to that?
What do you see in v.17, on what Jesus said regarding Peter's answer?
Jesus had already told them earlier that he is the Son of a human. So here in verse 13 he repeated that. But he had not told them yet that he is the Christ, the Son of God. So he did not have to repeat again in verse 15, that he is the Son of a human.
In v. 16 Peter was inspired and announced that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God. So then in verse 17 Jesus confirmed it that it was revealed to Peter by the Father, and not by a flesh and blood person, like Christ or anyone else.
What do you think is the reason why Jesus have to say and have to mention that he is the Son of Man (Son of a human), when his question is simply with regards to whom people say who he is?
What do you think is why Peter have to say and mention, besides saying that Jesus is the Christ, that Jesus is the Son of God?
How did Peter knew that? Verse 17 tells us that Peter knew that because, as Jesus said, His Father have revealed that to Peter and not by flesh and blood. How do you think was that?
Do you see anything significant in the entire passage?
No, Jesus did not have to say again that he is the Son of a human. But he chose to say it, in verse 13, he must have thought it is good for him to say it. He did not say why.
The Father revealed to Peter that Jesus is the Christ and the Son of God, so then naturally Peter wanted to say both of these revelations, so as to give enough information about who Jesus is. How do I think was that? The Father told him. How else?
What is significant in this passage? The new revelation to Peter, and so then from Peter to the other apostles, that Jesus is the Christ and also the Son of God. They did not know that before. They probably assumed, as did others, that he is a son of Joseph.
- Re: No, Jesus did not have to say again he is the Son of a human. - Michael on May 15, 2017, 11:29 AM
- OK, you have a good point about why Jesus chose to say here he is the Son of a human. - Tomas on May 28, 2017, 2:04 AM
- Re: OK, you have a good point about why Jesus chose to say here he is the Son of a human. - Michael on May 28, 2017, 6:28 AM
- So if the story in Mt. 14 precedes Mt. 16 chronologically, as you seem to think it does... - Tomas on Jun 10, 2017, 9:50 PM